If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I am shocked that Carl Sagan had so much trouble with just a call in questioner, can you imagine if the guy actually debated a Creationists with a PhD? It’d be ugly. Nearly, all of the genetic information needed to produce the different phenotypes we see in breeds of dogs today was present in their common ancestors, so that analogy just doesn’t really work. In fact, Creationists will use the dog analogy quite often to illustrate how selection cannot produce all of the species we see today from one single common ancestor.

Rob, I find your article about distant starlight to be a total misrepresentation of the creationist position. They reference AIG, but nearly all of the arguments they claim creationists use are located on AIG’s “Arguments Creationists should not use” page. Additionally, I find it rather convenient that none of the four current cosmological models I can think of off the top of my head that do reconcile the distant starlight problem with a “young” universe find their way into the article.

The concept of “appearance of age” brings our human experience to bear as we try to determine “how old” something or someone might be. For instance, how would you know what a 35-year-old man looked like if you had no experience watching people grow from birth to age 35?

lolololololol

This is math, man; not human familiarity.

We can see sunlight from distances that would take far, far longer than 6,000 years to reach us traveling the speed of light. Andromeda is 2.5 million light years away & we can see light from Andromeda. We know the speed of light, we know the approximate distance between our galaxy & Andromeda; it's simple math.

He was talking about the age of the Earth and an argument that should not be used because the Earth doesn’t actually look “old”, he was not talking about distant starlight and his points were completely sound.

We can see sunlight from distances that would take far, far longer than 6,000 years to reach us traveling the speed of light. Andromeda is 2.5 million light years away & we can see light from Andromeda. We know the speed of light, we know the approximate distance between our galaxy & Andromeda; it's simple math.

This is an over-simplification of the starlight problem; it’s a matter of convention, not math. A person can simply adopt a synchrony convention that is relative to one’s own position rather than velocity and voila the “problem” is solved because starlight would move instantaneous towards an observer on the Earth and 1/2C directly away from that observer, therefore the light from Andromeda would reach an observer on Earth instantaneously and the Universe could still only be 6,000-6,500 years old.

This is an over-simplification of the starlight problem; it’s a matter of convention, not math. A person can simply adopt a synchrony convention that is relative to one’s own position rather than velocity and voila the “problem” is solved because starlight would move instantaneous towards an observer on the Earth and 1/2C directly away from that observer, therefore the light from Andromeda would reach an observer on Earth instantaneously and the Universe could still only be 6,000-6,500 years old.

Can I get a link to the YEC site that you get this stuff from?

I've had a very busy couple of weeks here, so I'm still catching up on blog-worthy news. The biggest thing I saw last week was Jason Lisle's response to a critic on the AIG website. Posed with some questions that I have wondered myself (although not so irreligiously), Lisle defends his anisotropic synchrony convention, and the result is extremely revealing.

In response to the colliding galaxies problem, Lisle wrote, "Can you provide me with a logical reason why God would not create some galaxies in collision?" The problem, of course, is that there is no logical reason why God would create some galaxies in collision. As far as I can tell, there's no logical reason why God would create galaxies to begin with, much less colliding galaxies. That's why logic is only a partial guide in science: Science deals with the world of real things, not just logical possibilities. Science is concerned with observing patterns in data and trying to explain them. Galaxies are patterns in the distribution of stars. They are the exact kinds of patterns that scientists love to try to explain. The fun thing about logic is that it helps us narrow down possible theories, but only reference to the actual data can help us figure out which of the logically possible theories is most likely to be correct.

Because Lisle's anisotropic synchrony convention does not make predictions and cannot be tested, it really falls outside of the realm of science. It's more like medieval philosophy, where theories of ultimate reality could be bandied about because there was no way to test them. Lisle's idea reminds me of extreme forms of the idea of creation with the appearance of age. It's logically possible that God created the universe 5 seconds ago, with people having vivid memories of lives they never lived and events that never happened. But that logical possibility doesn't mean extreme appearance of age is scientifically or theologically useful.

And so ends my assessment of Lisle's solution to the speed of light problem. It just isn't science. As he seems to freely admit, anisotropic synchrony convention is all about logical possibility, but it doesn't actually help us understand or explain galaxies or pulsars or redshift or cosmic background radiation. He seems content to assume God made the universe exactly as it is for whatever inscrutable reasons He had. Talk about ad hoc. I suspect that those creationists like me who are actually interested in science will just shrug their shoulders at the anisotropic synchrony convention. Whether it's true or false, it just makes no difference.

Well it’s clear that Todd (whoever that is) doesn't understand the point of the synchrony convention Lisle is referring to (it has nothing to do with galaxies colliding), additionally it’s obvious that the person doesn’t even understand what a synchrony convention is or even what a convention is for that matter. Einstein adopted an isotropic synchrony convention that is untestable (no conventions are, but this does not mean they are unscientific) as well as that does not provide us with predictions and yet nobody has a problem with Einstein’s synchrony convention being used to suggest the universe is billions of years old. The point is that you choose to adopt an isotropic synchrony convention for the speed of light and then use that to argue that it takes light billions of years to reach Earth, while a Creationist can simply adopt an anisotropic synchrony convention and use that to argue that light can reach earth instantaneously. There is no distant starlight problem for the Creationist because there is no way to demonstrate that light really does move at C towards the observer and not instantaneously and 1/2C away from the observer.

Well it’s clear that Todd (whoever that is) doesn't understand the point of the synchrony convention Lisle is referring to (it has nothing to do with galaxies colliding), additionally it’s obvious that the person doesn’t even understand what a synchrony convention is or even what a convention is for that matter. Einstein adopted an isotropic synchrony convention that is untestable (no conventions are, but this does not mean they are unscientific) as well as that does not provide us with predictions and yet nobody has a problem with Einstein’s synchrony convention being used to suggest the universe is billions of years old. The point is that you choose to adopt an isotropic synchrony convention for the speed of light and then use that to argue that it takes light billions of years to reach Earth, while a Creationist can simply adopt an anisotropic synchrony convention and use that to argue that light can reach earth instantaneously. There is no distant starlight problem for the Creationist because there is no way to demonstrate that light really does move at C towards the observer and not instantaneously and 1/2C away from the observer.

"The act of choosing a synchrony convention is synonymous with defining the one-way speed of light. If we select Einstein synchronization, then we have declared that the speed of light is the same in all directions. If we select ASC, then we have declared that light is essentially infinitely fast when moving directly toward the observer, and ½c when moving directly away. Under ASC, the speed of light as a function of direction relative to the observer (θ) is given by cθ = c/(1-cos(θ)), where θ = 0 indicates the direction directly toward the observer. (My emphasis)

There is nothing to stop one choosing a synchrony convention which assigns events a time coordinate defined by the arrival of their signal at the Earth’s surface. But to define an Anisotropic Synchrony Convention is one thing; to then imply that anisotropy in the one way speed of light is also a matter of convention is entirely another thing. Let me explain.

Lisle correctly points out the practical and theoretical difficulties in measuring the one way speed of light with any rigor because of issues relating to the synchronization of two clocks that are separated by the distance over which the speed of light is measured. It is much easier, therefore, to measure the two way speed of light; that is by using one clock and timing light over a there and back journey. But the issue here, of course, is that it is conceivable that the speed of light on the outward journey may be different from that of the return journey; how would we know? For this reason a physicist called Edwards rehashed special relatively by simply assuming that only the two way speed of light, which is in fact the average speed over a there and back journey, is a constant equal to c. In spite of the possibility that the speed of light in one direction may be different from its speed in another direction Edwards found that provided the two way speed averaged to the value c then all the results of special relativity still applied. In my last blog on this topic I referenced a paper by Chinese physicist Jian Qi Shen who has done some work on the Edwards space-time. In the last page of his paper Jian Qi Shen writes down the metric for the Edwards space time thus: (written for the special case of a null geodesic in this instance, hence = 0)

Where X is a parameter that is dependent on observer velocity and effectively measures the anisotropy in the speed of light as seen by that observer. The crucial point is that X is constant for the observer and does not vary from place to place. Let Jain Qi Shen continue the story:

In other words there is no gravitational field in the Edwards space time because the anisotropy in the speed of light is constant; in the Edwards space-time the anisotropy in the speed of light does not change its direction as one moves from place to place. Under these circumstance one can by convention choose the one way speed of light without having any observable effect on special relativity and other physical circumstances. But - and here is the big "but" – one cannot choose a one way speed of light that varies its direction from place to place without introducing a space curvature; that is, without introducing a gravitational field. And it is precisely an anisotropy in the speed of light that varies its direction from place to place that Lisle thinks he can achieve merely by definition:

The act of choosing a synchrony convention is synonymous with defining the one-way speed of light.

Given that Lisle requires the speed of light in the direction of Earth to be all but infinity, then this means the anisotropy in the speed of light is radially directed toward the Earth, thus implying that the anisotropy changes its direction from place to place. Therefore Lisle’s “convention” is not a mere coordinate system redefinition because he cannot take this step without his model being physically different, a difference that entails a gravitational field. In my last blog on this subject I assumed that Lisle would spot this and that he would be forced to postulate some kind of geocentric gravitational field. But it seems that neither Lisle nor his AiG reviewers have spotted it. For Lisle’s YEC cosmos to work it must be pervaded by some kind of geocentric gravitational field. But since he does not see that a gravitational field is required to give him a light speed anisotropy that changes direction he therefore sees no reason to postulate a source of this field. We cannot detect an anisotropy in the speed of light if its direction and magnitude is constant, but as soon as we try to “define” an anisotropy that is spatially variable we find we cannot do so without introducing a gravitational field. Therefore the act of choosing a synchrony convention is not synonymous with defining the one-way speed of light. In short Lisle’s paper is fundamentally flawed. But this is not the only error in the paper, although it is probably enough to be going on with for now. If I get time I may look at the other problems in Lisle’s work.

In the YEC community the scientific quality of its papers is less crucial than the role they serve in the wider YEC culture. The average fundagelical supporter who doesn’t understand science can, if challenged on the issue of Star light travel time, simply point to papers such as Lisle’s with the misplaced confidence that the matter is in hand. From his perspective this paper comes out of the stable that runs the impressive Ken Ham Creation Museum, a museum where no expense has been spared and whose lavish (if tacky) exhibits must stun and awe the average Christian fundamentalist. When one is immersed in such a heady patriarchal culture it must feel that it just can’t be wrong. Any challenge to such an awe inspiring source must look as though its coming from somewhere near the gates of hell and need not be engaged; after all, it’s in the hands of people like Jason Lisle and his AiG reviewers – what better authority and assurance can one ask for? Thus, whether right or wrong, Lisle's work serves to act as an important community myth".

I'm not aware of any evidence that supports that drastic of a difference in the speed of light, depending on the observer. It's a convention, I get that, but it is a privileged frame of reference that has zero basis for proof. He twisted the underlying physics to fit a preconceived view rather than admitting that the people who wrote the bible believed (logically, given their limited understanding) that all stars are close to earth and that they're all equidistant, rotating around this little blue speck we live on. Since then, we have been able to witness the creation and destruction of new stars and so we know better.

My problem with the YE view is that it only works on a narrow range of topics. The old fashioned view of gods omnipotence making anything possible is much more consistent.

By trying to justify your belief system with modern science, you must ignore all of the inaccuracies and have a VERY selective interpretation if the Bible. Hard to get past the references to unicorns, dragons, giants, and people who lived to be 900 years old while maintaining its scientific accuracy. I'll stick with Einstein on this one.

"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."Henry Wheeler Shaw

I found this article interesting, although I found the most interesting part to be where an anonymous commenter refutes the entire article and points out that Mr. Reeves misrepresents Jian Qi Shen’s position and then uses that misrepresentation to falsely argue against Dr. Lisle’s convention (the notion of arguing against a convention is rather useless to begin with since conventions are stipulated and not proven). Judging by how frustrated and downright childish Reeves gets in the comments I think the commenter was definitely on to something. Either way, Lisle has stated that the objections found in this argument are easily refuted and he will do so in due time. If scripture uses an an-isotropic synchrony convention in its detailed account of the creation week then the distant starlight problem is not a problem for creationists at all.

Originally Posted by spydertl79

I'm not aware of any evidence that supports that drastic of a difference in the speed of light, depending on the observer. It's a convention, I get that, but it is a privileged frame of reference that has zero basis for proof. He twisted the underlying physics to fit a preconceived view rather than admitting that the people who wrote the bible believed (logically, given their limited understanding) that all stars are close to earth and that they're all equidistant, rotating around this little blue speck we live on. Since then, we have been able to witness the creation and destruction of new stars and so we know better.

Hello Spyder,

There is really no “evidence” to support one convention over the other because they are merely conventions, that would be like saying that there is “evidence” to support using the metric system over the English system of measurement which are merely conventions too. As long as causality, and the round-trip speed of light consistency are preserved both conventions are usable. One convention is velocity dependent, the other is position dependent. I think it is more likely that scripture uses a position dependent convention when describing creation, which means the light from all celestial objects and events reached observers on Earth instantaneously after they were created or occurred. I think the explanation on Lisle’s part is rather brilliant.

My problem with the YE view is that it only works on a narrow range of topics. The old fashioned view of gods omnipotence making anything possible is much more consistent.

Could you elaborate? I am not following you…

By trying to justify your belief system with modern science, you must ignore all of the inaccuracies and have a VERY selective interpretation if the Bible. Hard to get past the references to unicorns, dragons, giants, and people who lived to be 900 years old while maintaining its scientific accuracy. I'll stick with Einstein on this one.

Where are unicorns referred to in the Bible? There are scientific explanations for everything else you mentioned above. I am not sure what you meant when you said you’d stick to Einstein on this one, after all he himself initially considered using an an-isotropic synchrony convention in his work but opted to use the velocity dependent convention we use today. That being said, I do not try to use science to validate the Bible because it's backwards to try and use a fallible source in order to validate the infallibility of another source.

Einstein rejected that theory, just as he rejected Christianity and Genesis. If you accept that convention then it's fine, just know that it is only the view of a small number of physicists and that solving the starlight problem still leaves gaping holes in Genesis that I'd rather examine.

A verse refers to god having the strength of a unicorn. Please share your evidence that backs up the biblical claims of dragons and giants.

You say that you can't reconcile religion with science, but it seems like that is exactly what you're trying to do. If you admit that the bible is scientifically inaccurate, then I think we're done here :-)

Einstein rejected that theory, just as he rejected Christianity and Genesis. If you accept that convention then it's fine, just know that it is only the view of a small number of physicists and that solving the starlight problem still leaves gaping holes in Genesis that I'd rather examine.

It’s not a theory, it’s a convention and Einstein did not reject the idea at all, he simply chose to go with a velocity based convention rather than a position based convention; both of the two conventions work fine. The position based convention has actually been used in the secular literature before; it’s not that extreme of an idea.

A verse refers to god having the strength of a unicorn. Please share your evidence that backs up the biblical claims of dragons and giants.

You’re going to have to be more specific, the only verse I am aware of with the word “Unicorn” is in Job and it’s usually translated as “Wild Ox” in most English translations and not unicorn. It’s not referring to the magical white horse with a single horn, we know that.

Any large reptile can be referred to as a dragon, so the writers of scriptures use the term to most likely refer to any number of dinosaurs that used to be around (The Chinese still refer to dinosaurs as dragons). The term dragon is used most often in the books of Daniel and Revelation where it’s a metaphor for Satan. I see no problem with Giants in the Bible either, especially given the fact that their heights were realistic (somewhere between 7 and 9 feet tall).

You say that you can't reconcile religion with science, but it seems like that is exactly what you're trying to do. If you admit that the bible is scientifically inaccurate, then I think we're done here :-)

Where did I say that? I said that you can’t use science to validate scripture because science is fallible and scripture is infallible. There’s plenty of scientific evidence that is consistent with scripture, but a person shouldn’t use it to validate scripture, rather scripture validates our use of science. If the God of scripture didn’t exist we wouldn’t be able to do science because we couldn’t use inductive reasoning.